October 29, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 13 to 16 of 149 4 of 59 sheets 13 also a PDF and the other mistake we called out was that1 we have a watershed, we have one point of discharge. So2 all the water collects to one point of analysis. One of3 the watersheds, it had two points of discharge, but it4 treated them as one. So the water was being split in5 two different directions but the model never6 acknowledged that. And, again, I don't know an7 alternative method that allows for that kind of8 calculation. I don't know who does, but, again, you9 would think the report would cite the method, cite the10 justification for the method and then why this is the11 more appropriate method for this scenario. And, again,12 if you read the report, it doesn't say anything like13 that. It acts like it's acting straight from the DEP14 manual.15 I have one more point I just want to bring16 up with relocation of the sanitary line. I brought this17 up at the end of the presentation. The sanitary --18 there was a portion of the sanitary line that runs in19 through a stormwater underground basin. There's20 technically no rule against this, and I brought that up21 originally when I gave testimony. It just seemed like a22 bad idea and I wanted to bring it to the boards23 attention. In the CME letter they agreed and they24 actually, it's a requirement that the applicants going25 14 to move that sanitary line out of the stormwater basin1 and -- move it out of the stormwater basin and keep it2 out. No sanitary line should run through any stormwater3 basin and sanitary structure. It's a good rule. What I4 was curious is something -- CME also uses justification,5 not just the alternate method just in case some of it6 can't be called out, but also this has been approved by7 the DEP, the DEP was the expert on the rules and if they8 approved it then we should accept their decision. The9 DEP also approved to put the sanitary line through the10 stormwater basin and so it was very curious that in this11 instant CME chose not to defer to the DEP but instead12 chose -- they took a stance and said, no, we're going to13 need to move this line out of the stormwater basin and14 make sure no other lines go into the stormwater basin,15 despite the fact that maybe CME cited a rule. I didn't16 see them citing one in the letter, but I couldn't. So I17 thought that was curious, the fact that for this one18 instance

e stormwater basin,15 despite the fact that maybe CME cited a rule. I didn't16 see them citing one in the letter, but I couldn't. So I17 thought that was curious, the fact that for this one18 instance they went against DEP, but on many of the other19 instances called out they just deferred to them.20 Also like to point out from our, from our21 looking at it if they moved that sanitary line of the22 sanitary -- if they moved that sanitary line out of the23 underground stormwater basin they're going to have to24 move it into the wetlands. I'm saying you can't do25 15 that, but they're going to need to apply for more1 wetlands permitting to get that approved. Looks like2 they put it underneath the road, it's not an uncommon3 thing to do, because you're already disturbing the4 roadway for the -- you're disturbing the roadway so you5 tuck all you're utilities in the roadway. You couldn't6 in that situation so you have to run it to either side,7 either side of the wetlands. So they have to go back to8 the DEP and get more permitting approval.9 Let me just double check my notes to see if10 I have anything else.11 I'd just like to say one more thing, sorry,12 I missed this. I'll turn back to mottling. I'd like to13 just return back to the mottling for one more minute.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sure.15 THE WITNESS: You know, you have a report and16 there's, you know, you have an update from us and you17 have a report from the applicant and they don't have18 anything. You don't have to take their word for it. I19 mean, like I think this is enough of a situation where,20 you know, you could go out to the property and have CME21 dig some test pits to know where the test pits were22 done, dig them adjacent, take some photographs and see23 if they find mottling too. And, you know, you don't24 have to -- it seems like we're sitting here like, well,25 16 you know, the report says what the report says. You're1 not held to the report. You can require additional2 investigation. You can inquire your own experts and be3 there and witness. They don't have to do 100 tests4 pits, they could do like five, that's a days worth of5 work, and see the veracity and see, you know, what you6 find.7 So I think that is the end of my8 supplemental testimony.9 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, we have no further10 questions at this time.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.12 Okay. Mayor McCartney, do you have

nd.7 So I think that is the end of my8 supplemental testimony.9 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, we have no further10 questions at this time.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.12 Okay. Mayor McCartney, do you have any13 questions on the witnesses testimony?14 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.15 Actually went back to my notes from February and also16 April of this year and I asked the same question then,17 are you recommending additional basins to go wider or18 deeper and just to clarify what you just said, are you19 saying that that would be impossible to do or should20 they be adding even more basins?21 THE WITNESS: What I'm saying is that I think22 we suspect the seasonal high water table is higher than23 what their report shows. So they don't need to add more24 basins, but the basins would have to get wider. I am25